A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

JANUARY 25, 1994

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, January 25, 1994, at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioner's Meeting Room, Lake County Administration Building, Tavares, Florida. Commissioners present at the meeting were: Catherine C. Hanson, Chairman; Welton C. Cadwell, Vice Chairman; G. Richard Swartz, Jr.; Rhonda H. Gerber; and Don Bailey. Others present were: Frank T. Gaylord, Interim County Attorney; Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney; Peter F. Wahl, County Manager; Ava Kronz, BCC Office Manager; and Toni M. Riggs, Deputy Clerk.

Mr. Art Ayris, Assistant Pastor, First Baptist Church, Leesburg, gave the Invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

Mr. Frank Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, discussed the negotiations that have been ongoing for the purchase of the Bowen property adjacent to the western boundary of the Astatula I Landfill. He stated that there have been two separate appraisals, and the County has come to terms with the owner of the property and has negotiated a price of $2 million dollars. It was noted that the actual survey showed 198.5 acres. Mr. Gaylord stated that the environmental assessment has been completed and there is no evidence of contamination. He requested that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the proposed contract for purchase, and to move forward to the closing, which should occur within the next 10 days.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to authorize the final negotiation and friendly condemnation on the above named property, and the Chairman's signature on the closing documents for the Bowen property, in an amount not to exceed $2 million dollars.



ROAD VACATIONS

PETITION NO. 745 - John Thornton - Eustis Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board and stated that staff has received one letter of objection, and five letters in favor of the petition. Mr. Stivender described the area to be vacated in relation to the surrounding area and stated that staff reviewed the site as a potential future County maintained road and a special assessment, and determined that, because of the location, the tight corner, site distance, and the vertical roll in the property, it would not be a good location for a County maintained road.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney, representing Mr. John and Louise Thornton, and Mr. Jim Meadows, their son, appeared before the Board and stated that they are concerned that the road might be used in the future for through purposes, and that it creates a very dangerous situation. Ms. Campione stated that the Thorntons are in the process of selling their property and have found that this situation creates a "cloud" on their title, because potential buyers cannot be assured that the road will never be opened. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a permanent solution that will bring certainty to the situation by vacating the road, which will prevent future use of the road for through purposes. She noted that there are five letters in favor of the vacation, and of the nine people that were noticed on the petition, six people are in favor of it, one was not in favor of it, and two are indifferent to the situation.

Mr. Jim Meadows, representing the applicants, appeared before the Board and presented pictures of the property in question, which were entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the applicant's "Exhibit A".

Ms. Campione noted that, should the road be vacated, all property owners would still have access to their property.

Ms. Susan Igou appeared before the Board in favor of the vacation. She described the location of her home in relation to the property in question, and stated that this is a dirt road that once had black topping. She stated that she does not want through traffic, because of the curve being so dangerous, and there would be no advantage of a having a through way to Country Club Road.

Ms. Susan Lord appeared before the Board to discuss the environment of the large parcel to the north of where the road is to be vacated. Ms. Lord stated that, if there was through traffic, it would take the privacy away from the property owners, and reduce the value of their property.

Ms. Phyllis Cross appeared before the Board in opposition to the request. She presented the Board with a map with color coded areas and explained the location of her property in relation to the property in question. She explained that this does not involve a cul-de-sac area; there is no room for a vehicle to turn around on this section of road; and for emergency reasons, this section of road needs to be open. Ms. Cross stated that there has never been a problem with the road except when a house comes on the market for sale. Back in the 1970s when this particular lot was sold, the purchaser was not told that the platted street was there, so a petition was brought before the Board to close the street, but the Board chose to leave it open. She explained that the applicant was aware of the road situation, and there has never been another problem, until the Thornton's house was put on the market. She stated that she feels it would devalue her lots to have the road closed. She has two lots at this location that she would eventually like to sell. Ms. Cross stated that, at one time, a fire truck was trapped in this area, and she feels that it should be left open for utility reasons, pedestrians, and emergency uses.

Commr. Hanson called for further public comment in opposition to the request. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Stivender discussed the safety factor involved with the request and stated that the road is narrow, and if a fire truck or ambulance was to go in this area, it would have difficulty turning around on Fairway Avenue, because it is only a 30 foot right-of-way. The lots were platted with the assumption that there would be an additional 30 foot right-of-way on the north side, which never occurred. Therefore, the right-of-way would have to be doubled in order to get a special assessment in this area. It was noted that all property owners would have access, if this section of road was vacated.

Commr. Swartz questioned whether this request had been reviewed by Chief Craig Haun, Director of Fire and Emergency Services, and suggested that any requests, in the future, that may involve safety vehicles having the appropriate access to provide emergency services, get reviewed by the public safety staff. He stated that he could not foresee this particular area of road getting paved any time soon, yet he was reluctant to close it and provide no emergency outlet. He further stated that, because of County policy and stormwater management, a road in this area could not be physically built without requiring the additional right-of-way.

Discussion occurred regarding the issue of access for public safety vehicles, and Commr. Gerber suggested that Chief Haun review this, and the request be postponed.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion to approve Road Vacation Petition No. 745, by John Thornton, and Commr. Bailey seconded the motion for discussion.

Commr. Cadwell explained that he did not feel there would be a suitable answer to this situation, even if Chief Haun reviewed the issue and made his comments.

Commr. Swartz stated that perspective buyers need to understand that it is so unlikely that a road will go through here, but emergency accesses can be required in some cases in new plats, because there is only one way in and out, and they are identified only for emergency access.

Commr. Hanson stated that it is possible that those individuals that were in favor of the closing may not have considered the safety issues, but she would not have a problem with postponing the request for 30 days.

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, informed the Board that the applicant has traveled from Georgia to be present for the hearing. In the interest of the Board, he has paged Chief Haun, and suggested that the Board table the issue until the end of the road vacation requests.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to table the motion on the floor, until such time Chief Haun can be contacted and given a chance to review the request, with the issue being brought back to the Board after the balance of the agenda.

PETITION NO. 746 - Roper, Trust, et al - Clermont Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board and explained the location of the tracts and lots to be vacated including those of individual lot owners. He stated that the individual lot owners will technically not have legal access with this closing, but they have been noticed and are aware of this.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, explained that the individual lot owners are part of the petitioners who have joined into the petition, and they understand that, when they vacate part of the overall petition, the individual parcels may not have access, but the joint application is to provide joint access to the entire parcel.

Mr. Richey stated that there were many people in Anderson Hills, Lakeridge Club, and Amber Hills that had concerns with the application. He met with them and discussed zoning changes, and the road vacation. As a part of the road vacation, he explained that some old roads, plats and rights-of-way were being cleared up, and some will lose access, because access will be provided through the development. Mr. Richey stated that a letter had been received from Mr. Bobby Rosier who requested that he be assured that he had access. Mr. Richey stated the homeowner's associations for the people in Anderson Hills, Lakeridge Club, and Amber Hills requested that he evaluate some of the dead end streets that abutt into the property in question, because of their concern about people driving through their subdivisions, and to file an application to vacate said dead ends. Mr. Richey stated that Mr. Rosier requested, as part of the application, that his additional 15 feet of right-of-way on the east one-half of Lot 32 be added, and he anticipated filing this within the next 30 days. He stated that there is not opposition, because everyone understands that the application involves cleanup efforts for the three subdivisions. Mr. Richey informed the Board that Florida Power has written to the County indicating that they have structures in this area, and he requested that the Board vacate the plats and rights-of-way and reserve the utilities as they currently exist, and he will file a utility easement, which he received from Florida Power, to insure access to those substations that are within some of the rights-of-way.

Clarification was made that the utility easements would not be vacated as part of this vacation, with the easements being reserved as they currently exist, and that the plat and ingress and egress easements be vacated, and when the property is replatted, the appropriate utility easements will be filed for the relocating of those easements.

Commr. Hanson called for opposition to the request. There being none, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Stivender clarified that a lot of the subdivisions that have been built have brought back petitions to the Board to vacate old easements that were not vacated at the time of platting.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 746 by Roper, Trust; Bornstein, Trust to vacate roads, tracts and lots, Lake Highlands Co., Monte Vista Park Farms and Havenmont Subdivision, Sec. 32, Twp. 22, Rge. 26; Sec. 5 & 6, Twp. 23, Rge. 26, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2, as advertised.

PETITION NO. 745 - John Thornton - Eustis Area (Continued)

Chief Craig Haun, Director of Fire and Emergency Services, appeared before the Board to give his appraisal of the safety issues involved with the road vacation, including access for fire apparatus.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to remove from the table the previous motion, with the issue being brought forth once again for discussion.

Under discussion of the previous motion to approve the road vacation, Commr. Swartz requested that Chief Haun present his comments, in terms of safety conditions within the area in question.

Chief Haun stated that the right-of-way is not critical to the County providing fire protection in this area. He stated that, in the last few years, access has been through Topping Place where the fire hydrants are located and are on the water system with the City of Eustis. Chief Haun stated that he is familiar with the entrance that would come out on Country Club Road, and the concerns being expressed. He stated that the main access for fire protection purposes would be through Topping Place and into Fairway, and the road vacation would not affect this access for fire protection.

Mr. Hoban explained that the entire easement would revert to the Thorntons in this case.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously, to approve Road Vacation Petition No. 745 by John Thornton to vacate road, Broadvue Heights Subdivision, Sec. 13, Twp. 19, Rge. 26, Eustis Area - Commissioner District 4, as advertised.

PETITION NO. 747 - Magnolia Island Homeowners - Clermont Area

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, appeared before the Board and stated that no letters were received regarding the request. He noted that this request was being presented by the homeowners association.

Mr. Daniel Decker, applicant, appeared before the Board and explained that the purpose for the vacation of roads is to allow security gates to be placed on the roads, in order to reduce vandalism. It was noted that there are 39 lots, with ten (10) homes being lived in, and approximately ten (10) beginning construction. Mr. Decker discussed the boat ramp at John's Lake that has been closed for repairs, and the problems with this area on the lake, including people driving through property owners' front yards; destruction of bushes; oak tress that have been killed by gun fire; and airboats.

Ms. Debra Knerr, owner of two lots in the subdivision, appeared before the Board in opposition to the request. Ms. Knerr stated that she and her husband own one of the lots when you come into the subdivision, where the association has put the gate, and encroached upon their property. She explained that they have tried to contact Mr. Decker to discuss this situation, and that they are concerned about the following: the value of their property; what this is going to mean, as far as an expense to the homeowners; the encroachment on the property that will consist of a brick apparatus, which was not originally in the plan; and how this will affect the County services that are offered to the homeowners. Ms. Knerr discussed the association covenant, which explains that the homeowners' association can charge, as individual lot owners, for anything that needs to be done to a specific lot. Most of apparatus will be placed on their property, and she wanted to make sure that they would have access to their property.

Commr. Hanson stated that, because of the concerns brought forth by Ms. Knerr, the Board may wish to consider postponing this case.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone action on the request, until sometime later this morning, so that all parties involved can work with staff to establish a compromise and understanding between the two sides.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

ZONING

The Deputy Clerk administered the oath to the following staff members: Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center; Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director of Planning and Development Services; Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Division; and Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management.

PETITION #82-93-2 A to R-4 Holly Hill Fruit Prod. Inc.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center, informed the Board that the applicant is requesting a 30 day postponement, in order to resolve some details in the Developer's Agreement. It was noted that this was the first request for postponement.

It was noted that Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney, was present representing the applicant.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facility District), for an electrical substation, for 30 days, until February 22, 1994, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

PETITION CUP#89A/2/6-5 Amend CUP Lake County Boys Ranch

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center,

informed the Board that the applicant has contacted staff with regards to considering an alternate zoning district for the property. Because of the time constraints involved and staff not having time to evaluate the request and prepare a staff report, it will be brought back to the Board next month. Therefore, a 30 day postponement was being requested.

It was noted that no one was present to discuss the request.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the request to amend the existing CUP currently being utilized as a boys home, for 30 days, until February 22, 1994, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, with staff making the applicant aware that the Board needs to get any additional information and the proposed change within this time frame.

PETITION #71-93-5 RM to R-4 David Wall, Pres. - Ideal

Development Co.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center, informed the Board that the applicant was working on a Developer's Agreement, which had issues that were unresolved with the County Attorney's Office. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff was working out the zoning district for the property, and has not solidified the details, and therefore, staff, as well as the applicant, was requesting a 30 day postponement.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, informed the Board that the applicant has also submitted a Vested Rights Determination form, which staff has not had time to review.

No one present wished to discuss the request with the Board.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved to postpone the request for rezoning from RM (Mobile Home Residential) to R-4 (Medium Suburban Residential), for the construction of single-family residences, for 30 days, until February 22, 1994, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

PETITION #73-93-5 A to CFD Russell Minx

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center, informed the Board that the attorney representing the applicant has withdrawn from the case, and has sent a letter requesting a 30 day postponement, so that the applicant can seek other counsel.

Commr. Cadwell stated for the record that Mr. Minx contacted him, in regards to how someone goes about getting a case before the zoning board. He directed him to contact Mr. Stubbs, and proceeded to tell him the procedures used for a rezoning. Mr. Minx then contacted him again, but Commr. Cadwell explained to him that he could not talk about the case.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney, appeared before the Board and stated that she had filed a letter, which indicated she had withdrawn as counsel on the case, and, on behalf of the client, she had requested a 30 day continuance, so that he had the opportunity to seek other counsel. She stated that it would be highly prejudicial and inequitable to ask them to go forward today without the benefit of counsel, because of the quasi-judicial proceedings. Ms. Bonifay stated that this information was forwarded to Ms. Campione immediately to advise her of the withdrawal, and requested as a professional courtesy, if she would inform her clients and ask them to consider the request for a 30 day continuance.

Ms. Leslie Campione, Attorney representing the individuals who are opposing the request for rezoning, appeared before the Board and stated that she was given notice of the withdrawal of counsel and the request for continuance. She explained that her clients were present today, because they did not know whether the Board would be granting the request for continuance. She further explained that many of the individuals had taken off from work to attend the meeting, and may not be able to attend the next hearing, and therefore, they wanted the Board to recognize their appearance and their opposition to the request.

Commr. Bailey suggested that Ms. Campione have the individuals register their names, so that they will be acknowledged as being present for the hearing.

Ms. Campione stated that her primary problem involved the timing of the withdrawal of counsel, which disadvantaged her and her clients.

Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that there was one postponement of the request at the Planning and Zoning level, which was a concurrence between parties.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, to continue the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facility District), for an adult congregate living facility to house six (6) or more persons, for 30 days, until February 22, 1994, at 9 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.

Under discussion, Commr. Bailey stated that there were letters in support of the request, and in opposition of the request, and that both sides need to be present and represented.

Commr. Cadwell stated that, because of the intensity of the case, it would only be fair that the applicant had an attorney to represent him.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would support the motion, but that clarification needed to be made at this meeting that there is a point where the Board needs to hear a case when it is inconveniencing those people who appear to express their views, so he would expect that the Board will hear this case next month.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, with the motion being carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Gerber voted "no".

PETITION #79-93-4 A to CFD Martine D. Getford

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center, informed the Board of a request for withdrawal based upon the fact that the Lake County School Board has chosen not to select the site for the new school.

Mr. Gene Molnar, Lake County School Board, addressed the Board and explained that, because the site was voted down by the School Board, the rezoning was no longer being requested.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board accepted the withdrawal for the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facility District), for the construction of a public educational facility.

PETITION #86-93-2 A to CFD Hartle Groves

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center, presented the request to the Board. He noted that there was a corrected recommendation from the Public Services Department dated December 28, 1993, and there were no letters for or against the request.

It was noted that the applicant was present in the audience.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to CFD (Community Facility District), for an electrical substation, including the modification of requirements presented by the Public Services Department, which were dated December 28, 1993.

The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present for the discussion, or vote.

PETITION CUP#93/12/1-2 CUP in M-1 Larry & Judith Farley

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center, presented the request to the Board and stated that the Public Services Department has included its recommendations in the backup material.

Ms. Judith Farley, applicant, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Ms. Farley answered questions of the Board relating to the need for a caretaker's residence on her 40 acres.

No one present wished to speak in opposition of the request.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for CUP in M-1 (Heavy Industrial), for the placement of a mobile home for a caretaker's residence, including the conditions recommended by the Public Services Department.

PETITION #87-93-2 R-1 to R-3 Robert Davis

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center, presented the request to the Board, which had been approved with conditions, and stated that the Public Services Department has included its recommendations in the backup material.

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, reviewed the open space requirements setforth in the Comprehensive Plan.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the applicant, appeared before the Board and explained the request to the Board. He stated that the request is to rezone 50 acres to R-3 (Medium Suburban Residential) and to develop approximately 74 lots with central water. Mr. Richey explained the location of the lots and how Utilities Inc. will be involved with the water supply. Mr. Richey stated that, because the applicant is not asking for any variances or waivers, but a request for straight zoning, not through a PUD, he has added the $127.00 fire fee as a proposal in the Developer's Agreement, and has also provided, based on the topography and the environmental factors in the area, to have 20% of the site set aside for open space, which would not normally be required in straight subdivision and straight platting.

Discussion occurred regarding the applicant and the County having the option in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to require a MSBU, but which is not required in straight zoning requests.

It was noted, once again, that no one was present who wished to comment on the request, therefore, the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

Under discussion, Mr. Hoban discussed the issue of Developer's Agreements, and questioned the Board's direction on the requirements for open space, fire fees for large rezonings, and MSBUs.

Mr. Richey explained why he had established the conditions for fire and open space, which were presented to the Board, and stated that he did not have a problem with a MSBU, or MSTU, if the Board, or developer, chose to have it as a condition of the Developer's Agreement. He explained that the Developer's Agreement was presented to the Board approximately one month ago to Planning and Zoning. He stated that the request it not for mixed use, but straight residential zoning, and that the applicant has exceeded requirements for straight zoning.

Commr. Swartz stated that he feels most of the essential types of things ought to be included in the conditions for rezoning, and especially the MSBU, because the Board set, as one of its priorities, the desire to avoid tax increases. If the Board continues to approve developments and not insist that these developments, that are going to put additional requirements on law enforcement and other services, put MSBUs into place, the choice will not be to increase services and lower taxes, but will be to decrease services and have higher taxes. He stated that the open space requirement, in this case, is 20%, and the Board needs to either say that this request needs to go back and be done as a PUD, and come back so that all of these issues can be addressed, or to decide that the LDRs and the Comprehensive Plan say that these things are required in a straight zoning, or a PUD, request. The Board needs to make this adjustment, in order to address the issue of higher taxes. Commr. Swartz stated that he will not support the request today as a straight zoning, even if there was a MSBU, because even if it is a residential use, the PUD allows the Board to look at the impact of the request.

Commr. Bailey stated that this request is not for mixed use, and if it was, he would feel strongly that the developer should come in and request a PUD to address all of the issues being discussed. He explained that the request is compatible to the surrounding area, and the developer is providing the requirements for the fire and open space, and there is support in this area of the request.

Mr. Richey stated that there is a countywide MSBU, and if the County wants it to be a provision of the Developer's Agreement, he would have no problem with it being included, because the County would have him go through the master MSBU anyway. He discussed the wording that the Board had adopted historically, which indicated that the County "may" require the developer to do a MSBU, which he would have no problem doing.

Commr. Bailey made a motion to uphold the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to R-3 (Medium Suburban Residential), for the construction of single-family residences, including the Developer's Agreement as stated, including the limitations on density and the $127.00 per lot fire protection fee, and including the recommendations made by the Public Services Department, and with language being included that the County "may" require a MSBU at its discretion.

Commr. Bailey stated that the Board needs to be consistent, and it needs to commit to the policy, and unless the Board is going to change its policy today regarding the requirement for a MSBU, it should remain consistent with the previous action taken by the Board, and include the language "may" require a MSBU.

Commr. Cadwell seconded the motion.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that the Board was being consistent with its policy when MSBUs were made a requirement, until one developer made a request, and the language was changed in the PUD, and there had been no discussion for a change in policy.

Commr. Bailey suggested that the Board take a vote on the motion he presented, and under Commissioner's Business, or other items, Commr. Swartz could ask staff to bring back a policy change for consideration.

Mr. Richey stated that the County changed the language, so that the option for a MSBU was taken away from the developer, and given exclusively to the County, and the language indicates that the County "may" require a MSBU for stormwater and lighting, and if the County requires that of this request, the applicant will do this at that time.

Commr. Bailey reiterated that the Board needs to be consistent with policy, unless the Board was planning on changing the policy at this time.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "no".

ROAD VACATIONS (CONTINUED)

PETITION NO. 747 - Magnolia Island Homeowners - Clermont Area

(Continued)

Mr. Jim Stivender, Director of Public Services, addressed the Board and stated that all parties involved have resolved the problems indicated previously at the meeting, and have reached an agreement.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved Road Vacation Petition No. 747 by Magnolia Island Homeowners to vacate roads, Magnolia Island Subdivision, Sec. 35 & 36, Twp. 22, Rge. 26, Clermont area - Commissioner District 2, as advertised.



REZONING - CONTINUED

PETITION MSP#93/12/1-2 Mining Site Plan in A

Charles E. Bradshaw

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center, presented the request to the Board and stated that the acreage extends over into Sumter County. The approval of the request would include the recommendations from the Public Services Department, and would be subject to meeting all of the mining site plan requirements.

Mr. Jim Barker, Director of Environmental Management, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. The Board was presented with an aerial map of the property in question, which Mr. Barker discussed with the members.

Mr. Ted Wicks, Ted Wicks Consulting Services, Inc., appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. Mr. Wicks stated that he is the project engineer for this particular operation. He explained the peat mining extraction process that will be used, which will take place on approximately 107 acres. Mr. Wicks informed the Board that Mr. Steve Adams, Lake Planning Group, and Mr. Rick Fletcher, Environmental Attorney representing Mr. Bradshaw, the applicant, were present to answer any questions of the Board.

Mr. Steve Adams, Land Planning Group, appeared before the Board and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath. He stated that there are approximately 716 acres of wetlands in the entire site (Lake and Sumter Counties), and that 228.5 acres of the wetlands will be mined. Out of the 228.5 acres, 136 acres will be reclaimed and 93 acres will remain as open water. Mr. Adams explained the reclamation process that will take place after the mining. Mr. Adams stated that Sumter County does not have a hearing process such as this, but it does have an excavation permitting process.

Commr. Swartz expressed his desire to see more functioning wetlands after the peat extraction. He then questioned whether buffers would be required around the wetlands that will be impacted.

Mr. Barker explained that there is no requirement for buffering, but it could be placed as a condition after the mining process. Mr. Barker stated that there are very strict monitoring requirements for the mining, and after the vegetation is re-established, the land should be returned to productive wetland areas.

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Commr. Bailey stated that he wanted some assurance that Austin Merritt Road, which is clay, would be maintained and kept open, to accommodate those individuals who utilize the road.

Mr. Griffey referred to the recommendations being made by the Department of Public Services, which included the applicant providing an agreement for direct road maintenance, or a maintenance bond. Mr. Griffey stated that, after consulting with Mr. Wicks, the applicant would prefer the agreement option for them to maintain the road. If the Department of Public Services is not satisfied with the maintenance, the County will shut down the operation until the road is properly maintained. It was noted that the applicant agrees with these terms.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve to uphold the request for Mining Site Plan in A (Agricultural), for peat mining extraction, with the conditions as discussed and recommended by Mr. Griffey, Director of Engineering.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that he would like to make a motion, to amend the motion to approve the request, to include that the wetlands on the Lake County side that are impacted, be restored, mitigated, or new wetlands created in the ratio of 3 to 1, and any buffers that are included in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) be required around those wetlands that are impacted and/or restored.

The motion to amend the original motion on the floor died for the lack of a second.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion on the floor to approve the request, with the motion being carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Swartz voted "no".

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 11:15 a.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for ten (10) minutes.

PETITION #17-93-3 A to R-3 Partnership Management Services

Group & The La Salle Group as Trustees

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center, presented the request to the Board and stated that the request had been postponed at the Planning and Zoning Commission level for approximately 8-9 months awaiting a vested rights determination. Mr. Stubbs stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission was in opposition to going ahead and hearing the case, until this had been received. The staff had transmitted this to the County Attorney's Office, and the vested rights determination has been issued to the applicants, and it is in their possession. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff is recommending denial of the request based upon the fact that it would be inconsistent rezoning in this area, and the density proposed in the area would not be in compliance with the existing densities in the area. It was noted that there were seven (7) letters filed in opposition to the request, and the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the request 8-0.

It was noted that the applicant was not present for the hearing.

Mr. Steve Richey, Attorney representing the adjacent property owners, appeared before the Board to discuss the request. He stated that the request involves two lots, within a 14 lot subdivision, being rezoned. Mr. Richey stated that the owners of the other lots within the subdivision adamantly oppose this piece of property being rezoned from 5-7 acre tracts, down to R-3 (Medium Residential), which was the original request to allow 1/3 acre tracts in the midst of the subdivision. Mr. Richey stated that this is platted as a 14 lot subdivision, with the lots being in the excess of seven (7) acres. At this time, Mr. Richey described the location of the property, and stated that the property owners would like to keep the integrity of the large lots, and not allow a substantial increase in density, which would be incompatible with the surrounding developed lots.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to R-3 (Medium Residential), for single-family residential development, as it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as a land use designation of suburban.

The motion was carried by a 4-0 vote, with Commr. Cadwell not being present for the discussion or vote.

PETITION #84-93-4 R-1 to A Carol Eifler

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center, presented the request to the Board and stated that two letter had been received in opposition, and one petition with 15 signatures in opposition.

Mr. Charles Eifler, applicant, appeared before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. Eifler submitted photographs, which were entered into evidence and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the Applicant's "Exhibit A". Mr. Eifler described the location of the property and discussed the number of conventional homes versus the number of trailer homes.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board upheld the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approved the request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to A (Agricultural), for the placement of a mobile home.

PETITION #74-93-2 A to R-6 Chester J. Karst - Clear Creek

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center, presented the request to the Board and stated that the applicants had originally come to staff and proposed a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and staff had evaluated the PUD, and through the process of review, asked the applicants why they were requesting a PUD. Staff also questioned whether a straight zoning would be more appropriate, because they are right behind a PUD with services and could piggyback some of the needed services. Therefore, they amended their application to R-6 (Urban Residential) zoning. After staff consulted with the County Attorney, it was determined that the variances could not be included in the Developer's Agreement, and therefore, the applicants are requesting that this be considered as a PUD today. It was noted that staff would be making a presentation for a PUD. Mr. Stubbs stated that he had discussed this with Environmental Comprehensive Planning and Public Services, and there was no objection. Mr. Stubbs stated that staff has evaluated in both cases, for the R-6 and the PUD, and the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map at this designation, and is consistent with the Land Development Regulations (LDRs). It was noted that the variances were included in the backup material, which Mr. Stubbs indicated he would discuss at the end of the request.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing the Karst family, appeared before the Board and reiterated the facts presented by Mr. Stubbs, and explained that this is an 80 acre site, with 22 acres being wetlands, which are going to be a constraining factor for the design of the subdivision. After reviewing the request for a PUD with the Technical Review Committee (TRC), it was determined that, because the acreage was so small, a Developer's Agreement would be done rather than a PUD. She stated that the requirements meet the PUD requirements, in terms of 25% open space, and the density is lower that what could be developed in the urban area. Ms. Bonifay discussed the surrounding PUDs and the density being allowed in each one. She stated that staff mandated that there be access from this parcel through the PUD to the east to gain access to Highway 27, and to define the criteria for the type of roadway it would have to be. She also discussed the water and sewer that would be made available to the applicant by South Lake. The utility and sewer treatment plant, which is located in the Green Swamp, Area of Critical State Concern, on the west side of the road, is under construction at this time, along with the initial apartment buildings. Ms. Bonifay expressed her concern that the variance issues were not raised until yesterday, and that this request has been under review for 120 days. She stated that the elements in the Developer's Agreement are requirements imposed in a PUD, including the MSBU, water and wastewater requirement, and the fire impact fee. It was noted that this would be single-family residential development with no commercial.

Mr. Hoban explained that the requirements in the Developer's Agreement would have to be placed into a PUD, if the request was approved by the Board.

No one present wished to speak in opposition to the request.

Commr. Swartz stated that the Board did not have a PUD ordinance before them, and unless the Board was going to change its disposition on how it was going to deal with the MSBUs, he would not support the request.

Mr. Stubbs reviewed the attached variances with the following action being taken:

A. Section 9.06.03 (B)(1) - states that a subdivision cannot be platted until a stormwater management plan has been implemented. The applicant requests to allow the developer to plat subdivisions during construction of the infrastructure. This is commonly done by posting a bond for the proposed improvements until the improvements are in place.





PUBLIC SERVICES:



Based on the request, no variance is required.



No action was taken by the Board.



B. Section 9.04.01 (30) - Block Layout: A variance to allow blocks from 1200 ft. up to 1800 ft. in length.



PUBLIC SERVICES:



Block lengths are determined by the distance between intersecting streets. Block lengths shall be at intervals to meet existing street patterns, topography and requirements for safety and convenient vehicular/pedestrian circulation. Public Services has no objection to this variance. The provided plan meets the intent of the regulation.



No action was taken by the Board.



C. Appendix A, Transportation Planning Design and Construction Standards, Sec. I - Design Standards: A variance to delete the requirements for a full Traffic Impact Analysis provided the Preliminary Traffic Analysis fulfills the needs of the Department of Public Services.



PUBLIC SERVICES:



The Department of Public Services recommends approval of this request provided that a traffic impact analysis per Lake County Land Development Regulations be submitted within the Preliminary Plat application. Any necessary improvements identified in the traffic impact analysis should be required improvements of this development. The analysis should include existing and proposed developments in the area.



On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the above variance identified as C.

Discussion occurred regarding whether action was needed by the Board on the variance identified as B.

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried, the Board approved the above variance identified as B. Commrs. Swartz and Gerber voted "no".

D. Appendix A, Transportation Planning Design and Construction Standards, Sec. II - Design Standards, Paragraph (C)(4) - A variance from the maximum cul-de-sac length of 1320 ft. to 1800 ft.



PUBLIC SERVICES:



There shall be no objection to increasing the cul-de-sac length from 1320 to 1800 feet if the need is due to geographical/topographical limitations. However, it is not recommended to waive this requirement for self imposing restrictions such as golf course design, development layouts, etc. The Public Services Department shall review the proposed length increase on a case by case basis, and have the right to approve or disapprove each request.



On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the above variance identified as D.

E. Appendix A, Transportation Planning Design and Construction Standards, Sec. II, Design Standards, Para. (C)(6) - A variance from the maximum grade of eight (8%) percent to maximum grade of ten (10%) percent for local roads other than the main collector roads (A & B).



PUBLIC SERVICES:



The Transportation Standards allows for a maximum grade of 10% for cases involving severe topography. Based upon the request, no waiver is necessary.



It was noted that no action was needed by the Board on the above variance identified as E.

F. Appendix A - Transportation Planning, Design and Construction Standards, Sec. II - Design Standards, Para. (D)(1)(a). A variance from ten (10') ft. wide bicycle paths to seven (7) ft. wide.



PUBLIC SERVICES:



The Transportation Standards allow an eight foot width for bike paths. Public Services recommends that the bike paths be constructed at the eight foot width instead of the requested seven foot width.



On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the above variance identified as F.

G. Appendix A, Stormwater Management Standards, Sec. VI, Hydraulic Design Criteria, Para. (B)(4). A variance to use allowable pipe velocity of twenty (20) fps. in lieu of ten (10) fps for reinforced concrete pipe only (not metal pipe).



PUBLIC SERVICES:



Public Services recommends approval of the request for a variance of allowable concrete pipe velocity from 10 to 20 fps provided that the applicant submits data demonstrating that damaging scour conditions will not result within the pipes.



On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved the above variance identified as G.

H. Chapter VI - Sec. 4.03.00 PUD, Para. 4.03.01 (a). If a variance is required, it is requested that the owner shall be allowed to sell tracts of the PUD for development by other owner(s), subject to the control by the current owner and according to the officially approved PUD development plan.





PUBLIC SERVICES:



The Public Services Department has no comment.

Development Regulations: No variance is required.



It was noted that no action was needed by the Board on the above variance identified as H.

I. Chapter II, Section 3.03.02, regarding central sewer, it is requested that the owner be allowed to have temporary septic tanks to serve a model center until central facilities are in place.



PUBLIC SERVICES:



The Public Services Department has no comment.



Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to approve the above variance identified as I.

Under discussion, the Board members questioned the number of temporary septic tanks that will service the model center. Mr. Stubbs explained that staff was recommending no more than ten.

Commr. Bailey amended his motion to allow "up to ten", and Commr. Cadwell amended his second to the motion.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

J. Setbacks: It is requested that the following setbacks are maintained: 15 ft. front; 5 ft. rear and 10 ft. side setbacks (between 2 units or zero lot lines).



PUBLIC SERVICES:



The Public Services Department has no comment. Pursuant to Section 9.05 of the Lake County Land Development Regulations, the applicant shall comply with the Access Management Ordinance.



Development Regulations: The Department of Development Regulations recommends a twenty-five (25') ft. front setback; five (5') ft. rear and ten (10') ft. side setbacks (between 2 units or zero lot lines). If a plan is provided demonstrating the need for a reduction in setback areas, this could be considered.

Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, for the Board to approve the above variance identified as J.

Under discussion, Mr. Stubbs clarified that, based upon the arrangement of the houses, staff had no objection to the setbacks.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried unanimously.

Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Cadwell, to overturn the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the request for rezoning from A (Agricultural) to PUD (Planned Unit Development), including the variances, as stated above, and the items identified in the Developer's Agreement, which shall be included in the PUD.

Under discussion, Commr. Gerber questioned whether this would include the MSBU. It was noted that it would not include this, and therefore, Commr. Gerber stated that, as a matter of consistency, she would vote against the motion.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried. Commrs. Gerber and Swartz voted "no".

PETITION #69-93-5 R-1 to CP or MP Walter & Alice Zingre

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center, presented the request to the Board and stated that a petition was received with 274 signatures in opposition to the request, and numerous letters had been received in opposition. Mr. Stubbs informed the Board that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended a CUP in A (Agricultural) including conditions as outlined in the Staff Report.

The Planning staff submitted as evidence four (4) photographs, which were entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the County's Exhibit "A".

Commr. Swartz stated for the record that, after the Ocklawaha Chain of Lakes Restoration Meeting approximately two weeks ago, as a result of a question and answer period, an individual in the audience asked a question somewhat related to water issues, but which was more related to the conduct of the Planning and Zoning Board than to the merits of the case. Commr. Swartz stated that he explained to the individual that he would not be able to discuss this case, because it was upcoming, and there was no further discussion. He was later contacted by phone, and he told the individual that he could not discuss the case, and any information would need to be sent to the Board Office, or the Planning and Zoning Department, and it would be included in the Board members' package of information. Commr. Swartz stated that, in no way has he been prejudiced by any of these contacts.

Commr. Gerber stated that she was also at the meeting referred to by Commr. Swartz, and that she has not been prejudiced in any way. She further stated that she was contacted by two individuals about the case, and she told them that she could not discuss it.

Ms. Cecelia Bonifay, Attorney representing Walter and Alice Zingre, appeared before the Board and explained the location for the construction of a mini warehouse, and stated that industrial and commercial already exist on State Road 44. Ms. Bonifay stated that the applicants already operate a mini warehouse facility on the other side of the Bassville Fire Department, and they now want to replicate what already exists. She further stated that her clients met with staff on several occasions, along with the individual who would be constructing the warehouse, Mr. Mark Matthews. She stated that, while staff is not going to give a pre-determination, they are going to indicate whether or not this is appropriate, which they did for a commercial use, such as a CP (Planned Commercial) at this location. At this time, her clients purchased the piece of property in question, and expended considerable sums of money, including money for an environmental consultant, but once her clients reached the Planning and Zoning Commission, it received a recommendation for denial from staff. She explained that approximately two acres are going to be developed out of the 6-8 acre site. A large portion of the site is in a wetland area, which also acts as a buffer. Ms. Bonifay discussed the number of petitions, and stated that the opponents rely heavily on the number, but that she will show that many individuals signed the petition, because of misrepresentations that were made to them as to what was actually going to be located on the site, including a huge above ground boat storage facility.

Ms. Bonifay submitted as evidence the Petition of individuals who signed the prior Petition in opposition, due to the fact that they were misinformed as to what Mr. Zingre was applying for, but who now support Mr. Zingre's application, (signatures indicated by a red check mark), which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the applicant's Exhibit "A".

Ms. Bonifay submitted as evidence the Affidavit from Clarence L. Witt, and the Affidavit from Philip W. McCarroll, which were entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the applicant's Exhibit "B" (composite).

Ms. Bonifay called Mr. Steve Adams, Land Planning Group, to present testimony. It was noted that Mr. Adams had been administered the oath previously during the Board meeting.

Mr. Adams presented his credentials as an environmental consultant, and explained the types of environmental issues that he is hired to review and analyze. Mr. Adams stated that he was hired by Mr. Zingre in September, 1993, to access a site off of State Road 44.

Ms. Bonifay stated that the material that was presented at the Planning and Zoning meeting, which was marked as Exhibit A, will be circulated among the Board members, and will include the map from which Mr. Adams' testimony will be given.

Mr. Adams explained the map, and the wetlands survey, which were presented to the Board. He then presented testimony as to the jurisdiction determination made by the Corps of Engineers, in relation to the site in question, and stated that the determination was good for a period of three years. He explained the criteria exercised by this particular agency in making its jurisdictional claims, in relation to those established by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). Mr. Adams noted that the Corps of Engineers has the more restrictive wetlands criteria. Mr. Adams elaborated on the permitting that would be required from these State agencies for any alterations that would be made to the wetlands, and noted the lengthy time frame of approximately six months that would be involved with the required permitting through the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Adams stated that the drainage issue would also be considered from the standpoint of water quantity, as well as water quality. Mr. Adams explained his involvement with the permitting, and stated that the wetlands could act as buffers for this particular site.

Ms. Bonifay called Mr. John Springstead, owner of Springstead Engineering, to provide testimony. The Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. Springstead stated that he is a registered professional land surveyor and engineer in the State of Florida.

Ms. Bonifay submitted as evidence a site plan from Springstead Engineers entitled Pine Harbor Storage No. 2, date stamped January 19, 1994, which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the applicant's Exhibit "C".

Mr. Springstead described the site plan, in terms of developed and undeveloped areas, and stated that the survey of land encompasses approximately 8.5 acres. Mr. Springstead described the wetlands line that was referred to earlier, and the water retention area. He discussed the drainage pattern and stated that the water in the project area will drain to the retention area, and then it will drain away from that over into the Lake Eustis marsh to the east. He further stated that 95-99% of the surface water runoff will come from the project, with approximately 1% going into Lake Eustis.

Ms. Bonifay submitted as evidence a letter from Mr. Bruce H. Phillips, P.L.S., Springstead Engineering, Inc., which was entered and marked by the Deputy Clerk as the applicant's Exhibit "D".

Mr. Springstead explained the letter from Mr. Phillips, which was written at his direction, which indicated that no drainage from the referenced property was leaving the site. Mr. Springstead discussed the permits that would have to be obtained for the site, and what they would entail.

Ms. Bonifay questioned, if this site is developed pursuant to the site plan, and the applicant obtains all applicable permits and meets the criteria, will the development of this site have any negative, or adverse, impact on the drainage in the subdivision located directly behind it, and Mr. Springstead responded, "not in his opinion."

Ms. Bonifay referred to the applicant's Exhibit C, Case No. 69-93-5, which was submitted at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

Ms. Bonifay called Mr. Walter R. Zingre for testimony, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. Zingre described the photographs in Exhibit C, which were submitted at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, and stated what he is currently doing with storage facilities, and what he is proposing to do. Mr. Zingre explained other physical activities that took place on the site, and the improvements that were made to the site, including means of security. Mr. Zingre discussed concerns that were expressed to him by the neighbors, and stated that he addressed these by repairing the fencing, mowing the weeds, and cleaning the retention area. He stated that he accommodated the neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Bob Tye and Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Dillinger, by putting up a stockade fence instead of a chain link fence. He stated that the construction of the proposed buildings will be identical to the existing storage facilities. He discussed the recommendation from staff to limit the retail space to a maximum of 5,000 square feet, and explained that this would not be economically feasible for him, and therefore, he estimated an amount of 24,000 square feet. He stated that this is a reduction from his original plans, which was made in an effort to compromise with his neighbors.

Ms. Bonifay explained that staff had determined that the only way that this could be approved was through CP (Planned Commercial) zoning, because there had to be a strict application for location criteria, and the only thing that this came close to was a neighborhood convenience center, which only allowed for 5,000 square feet. She discussed with staff the issue of having a CUP, which was selected to give the Board the flexibility that it needed to make the specific conditions for this particular area. She referred to the section of the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), which pertains to conditional uses, and discussed it with the Board.

Ms. Bonifay stated that she would like to call Mr. Stubbs, or Mr. Knight, to provide testimony as to the Staff's Report. At this time, Ms. Bonifay made reference to a case that was scheduled on the agenda for tomorrow before the Planning and Zoning Commission, which involves property on State Road 44, and stated that she wished to enter this as an exhibit. She was instructed by Mr. Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, that she could make reference to another case only in a hypothetical way, but not go into specifics of another case.

Ms. Bonifay called Mr. Stubbs to provide testimony. It was noted that he had been administered the oath earlier in the day.

Mr. Stubbs explained that there is a section of State Road 44 that has been classified as an arterial roadway, and another section has been classified as a collector road. He stated that this particular property is not anywhere near an intersection for a collector-arterial road, and therefore, the limitation of 5,000 square feet was determined, only because there are existing mini-warehouses at this general location and would be a logical progression in this area. He explained that staff only evaluated this case on a mini-warehouse use, and did not evaluate it for any other commercial uses. He indicated that this is an appropriate site for a mini-warehouse use, with limitations. Mr. Stubbs explained that there is neighborhood convenience center locational criteria, and a neighborhood activity center locational criteria, which are both used to evaluate a case of this type. He further explained that Mr. Zingre's case did not meet the first criteria, which indicates that the location would be at intersections of collectors, or arterials. Mr. Gregg stated that cases where the location has been somewhere along a collector, or arterial, have been considered on a case by case basis, and those that meet the neighborhood convenience center criteria have been limited to 5,000 square feet. He emphasized that staff looks at the use and its capatability with existing uses of neighborhood convenience store.

Ms. Bonifay reserved the option for cross-examination, and stated that there is no prohibition to the CUP, and the Comprehensive Plan that utilizes the classification, as opposed to CP, clearly can be used in this case to address concerns of the neighbors, and to limit what is actually placed on the site, and to require specific conditions.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting, and those present in the audience wishing to speak in opposition stood before the Board, and the Deputy Clerk administered the oath.

Mr. David Whiting appeared before the Board in opposition to the request and stated that he read comments into the record on January 5, 1994 opposing the petition. It was noted that this was a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Whiting responded to the comments made earlier about the petitions that were circulated among the neighbors and stated that he was approached by two individuals who verbally told him that there was some confusion as to what was planned to be constructed on the site. He then signed the petition. Mr. Whiting stated that he wrote the Board a letter on January 16, 1994 regarding statements that were made at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting by some of the members, and, at this time, he read the letter to the Board. Mr. Whiting questioned the recommendation for a CUP in A (Agricultural), and why a change was made to the original request for CP (Planned Commercial) or MP (Planned Industrial). He discussed the adjoining land use to the west of the site, which is a fire station, and stated that, even though it is not currently being used, the area is being developed and it will be used again one day. Mr. Whiting stated that he would like to see the property remain as residential, but if a change is made, he would like to see it approved as CP (Planned Commercial) with a 5,000 square foot restriction.

Mr. Darryl Dellinger appeared before the Board in opposition to the request and stated that he lives directly behind the fire house. He explained that he first heard about Mr. Zingre purchasing the property in July. He and his wife approached him about his plans for the property, and Mr. Zingre implied that he would like to put some boat storage on it, or more sheds. Mr. Dellinger discussed the process he used to start a petition in Pine Harbour Subdivision to oppose the rezoning request; how he went about getting the information to place on the petition; and what he told each individual when he approached him with the petition. Mr. Dellinger described the storage sheds and the retention pond, and stated that the main reason that he opposes the request is because he does not want to see more commercial development in this area, and because of the water problems that currently exist. He stated that, when there is a heavy rain, the excess water runs south into his subdivision.

Ms. Bonifay recalled Mr. Springstead for further testimony. It was noted that Mr. Springstead was under oath. Mr. Springstead explained the tests that were run on the site to define the drainage pattern. The overflow from the retention area was traced on the existing site and was found to run out to State Road 44. Mr. Springstead stated that the fire station has its own defined drainage system with a water retention area in the back, and there may be problems in this area, but it is not from the existing storage area, as determined by the levels taken from the site.

Ms. Bonifay addressed the stormwater problems explained by the opposition, and questioned whether there was anything further that the applicant might do other than what is shown on the site plan, to help remedy the problem even though it is not being created by the site in question.

Mr. Springstead stated that he did speak with the County Engineer when he found out that there may be a problem in this area, and the County Engineer indicated that he visited the fire station area in 1991 when there was some high water. The County Engineer asked him if he would have an objection to putting a swail along the south line of the proposed developed area between the water retention area and the lots he enumerated in his previous testimony of being in Pine Harbour. Mr. Springstead indicated that he would have no problem providing a swail that would take the water from the residential lots into the Lake Eustis marsh to the east.

Ms. Bonifay presented closing statements and reiterated facts presented by witnesses who were called to provide testimony. Ms. Bonifay stated that she feels the 24,000 square feet makes this an economically viable site. She stated that the CUP can be carefully tailored to this particular site and, if the CUP does not meet the conditions, the Board has a prerogative to call a public hearing and remove it. She stated that this will be less intense zoning (Agricultural) than what is there today.

The Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting, and comments were reserved to the Board.

Commr. Cadwell referred to a letter received from Ms. Bonifay's office indicating that the 5,000 square footage would simply "kill the entire project", which indicates that the applicants are not interested in reducing the footage. He stated that he appreciated the knowledge and expertise provided by the professionals, but that he feels there is a water problem in this area, and it is continuing. He further stated that the project will make it worse, and therefore, he would not support the zoning.

Commr. Bailey concurred with Commr. Cadwell as to the existing water problems. He stated that the prevailing use is R-6, or residential, for this area, and if the site was closer to the intersection, he would be more receptive, but he felt it would be intruding more into the established community. Commr. Bailey concurred with Commr. Cadwell and was against the request.

Commr. Swartz stated that, although there are some water issues that are existing and that need to be addressed, the reason for his position on this issue involves the request not meeting the locational criteria spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan. It is the locational criteria of the commercial that it does not meet. He discussed the concept of a CUP in Agricultural, and stated that the definitions in agriculture in the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) do not contemplate mini-warehouses. Commr. Swartz stated that, if the County is going to protect the integrity of the roadways, it is going to have to look very carefully at the locational criteria, in order to avoid stripping commercial up and down the highways.

Commr. Gerber expressed that she was somewhat disconcerted by the comments made by Mr. Springstead, and stated that she is aware of the standing water problem in this area. Other issues she considered included the integrity of the Comprehensive Plan, the transportation issues, the locational criteria, and the limiting of strip commercial, and therefore, she stated that she would not be able to support the request.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board overturned the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denied the request for rezoning from R-1 (Rural Residential) to CP (Planned Commercial) or MP (Planned Industrial), and for a CUP in A (Agricultural), for the construction of a mini warehouse.

Commr. Hanson stated that she voted against the request because of the confusion, in terms of how the original request for CP or MP zoning became a recommendation for a CUP in A. She stated that she agrees this should not be in agricultural zoning.

RECESS & REASSEMBLY

At 1:40 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess for lunch and reconvene at 2:30 p.m. for the scheduled workshops.

TIMES CERTAIN

WORKSHOP - Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, appeared before the Board and directed the Board's attention to the memorandum dated January 4, 1994, from him through Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, which identifies the Comprehensive Plan amendments that were discussed at the Board meeting previously, and were to be initiated by the Board.

Mr. Knight addressed the first amendment to the Future Land Use Map regarding the relocation of the Lake Jem Rural Village designation to more closely correspond with the historic Lake Jem area. It was noted in the summary that the County subsequently adopted a small-scale amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate a portion of the east one-half of the Lake Jem Villa Plat, and the small-scale amendment was approved with the intent of more precisely designating the Lake Jem Rural Village without changing the area (size) of the designation during the first regular Comprehensive Plan Amendment cycle. Staff attempted to relocate the Lake Jem Rural Village designation in order to more precisely define the area based on historical information available to the County.

Mr. Knight addressed the second amendment to the Future Land Use Map to remove the Institutional land use designation for Site K, a formerly proposed landfill site that is no longer being considered now that Astatula II has been opened. It was noted in the summary that Site K had been removed from the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements.

Mr. Knight addressed the third amendment to the Future Land Use Map to incorporate the most recent annexations by the municipalities within Lake County. He stated that the County has incorporated the City of Leesburg's annexation of the airport, as well as all other annexations by municipalities over the last year.

Mr. Knight addressed the fourth amendment, to the Conservation Element, to incorporate the most recent Silviculture Best Management Practices adopted by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. He referred to his memorandum dated January 4, 1994, and to the memorandum dated January 14, 1994, from James Barker, Director, Environmental Management Division, to discuss Policy 7-5A.1: Silviculture Activities. He noted that Mr. Barker had added the following language: "including all criteria and setbacks for primary streamside management zones." It was noted that this follows the Best Management Practices (BMPs). Mr. Knight stated that the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) objects to having a clause that says the most recent Best Management Practices, or State law, but the language in his memorandum includes the Best Management Practices that were adopted in 1993 by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. It was noted that Mr. Paul Bergmann, Senior Director, Department of Planning and Development, and Mr. Barker, Director of Environmental Management, are in agreement to this language. Mr. Knight explained that the Conservation Element would have to be amended each time the County wanted to incorporate the new Best Management Practices as they got adopted, if this language was not included.



Mr. Barker addressed the Board and explained that the language that was stricken from this policy, because it was reiterated in the body of the BMPs, but much more extensively.

Mr. Knight explained the following changes:

Page VII-23 - b.



Delete: Affairs and the Division of Forestry

Add: Services



Page VII-34 - Policy 7-17.3:



Delete: Manual and "Management Guidelines for Forested Wetlands in Florida"

Delete: Division of Forestry

Add: however

Delete: and



Commr. Hanson stated that she had a problem with the word "however" on Page VII-34 - Policy 7-17.3, and felt this would really inhibit agricultural activities. After some discussion, it was determined that this wording would be appropriate when dealing with wildlife.

Mr. Knight discussed Mr. Barker's memorandum dated January 14, 1994, and the following changes in language:

Page 2 - Policy 1A-2.8: Septic Tank Provisions.



1. Add: "shall require a 75 foot setback or a setback as far landward as possible based on the depth of the lot, from any wetland."



Page 2 - Policy 1A-2.8: Septic Tank Provisions.



5. Delete: 1993

Add: 1995



Mr. Barker addressed the memorandum from Walter Wood, Professional Geologist, and explained the language pertaining to Policy 1-2.5 and Policy 7-2.14, "Sinkholes".

There being no further questions, it was noted that no action was needed by the Board on the above.



ADDENDUM NO. 1

TIME CERTAIN

WORKSHOP - Noise Ordinance

Mr. Kirk Warren, Assistant County Attorney, presented the Board members with a draft of the proposed Noise Ordinance, and a copy of the Seminole County Noise Ordinance 92-19.

Commr. Gerber explained that the Board has two alternatives on Section 7. Specific Exemptions. The Board can adopt the ordinance, which includes exemptions, as listed, or the ordinance that simply states exemptions, as follows: "Any acts or circumstances not constituting a specific prohibition are hereby declared to be exempt from violation of this Ordinance."

Commr. Cadwell stated that this ordinance is well written, but he feels it will be used as a neighborhood dispute tool, and he will not support it.

Commr. Gerber stated that there could be exceptions to each exemption, and therefore, a blanket type of exemption would suffice.

Mr. Warren explained that Sheriff George E. Knupp, Jr. is more concerned with the noises that come from all night parties, and similar occurrences. It was noted that there is already an existing Florida State Statute in regards to "boom boxes", and a State Statute, under the motor vehicle laws, that applies to motor vehicles on highways.

Discussion occurred regarding the procedures that will be used to prosecute an offender.

Commr. Gerber stated that she is willing to review any amendments to the ordinance, if changes are needed over the next year or two, in order to determine whether the effectiveness of the ordinance.

Commr. Bailey stated that he would prefer to keep the ordinance simple, and as time progresses, if the Board needs to come back to it and get more specific, it can be re-addressed. He stated that the Sheriff had conveyed to the Board that he would do this at no extra cost, and at his discretion.

Discussion occurred regarding the prohibitions that had been placed into the ordinance, which Commr. Gerber clarified were areas that were specifically brought to her as problems, and that the Sheriff's Department had indicated as needing a "tool" to address.

Commr. Swartz stated that there are other problems, in terms of animals, which may be addressed in an Animal Control Ordinance. He suggested that a motion be made for the Board to go forward to a public hearing with some commitment to this process.

Commr. Gerber made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Bailey, to approve to advertise the proposed Noise Ordinance for a public hearing, to include the following: "Section 7. Exemptions. Any acts or circumstances not constituting a specific prohibition are hereby declared to be exempt from violation of this Ordinance."

Discussion occurred regarding the following option: "Section 5. Knowledge and Permission by Property Owner. The continuation of a prohibited noise disturbance shall be deemed to continue with the knowledge and permission of the property owner." Mr. Warren explained that this would be consistent with the simplified Section 7. Discussion continued regarding the term "Property Owner", and the need to include the term "Occupant". Mr. Frank T. Gaylord, Interim County Attorney, stated that this could be included along with a definition of "occupant".

Commr. Gerber included the following in her motion: "Section 5. Knowledge and Permission by Property Owner or Occupant. The continuation of a prohibited noise disturbance shall be deemed to continue with the knowledge and permission of the property owner or occupant."

Commr. Cadwell reiterated that he disagrees with the ordinance, and will not support it, but acknowledged the fine work

of the County Attorney's Office in the development of the ordinance.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, including the above language in Section 5 and Section 7, which was carried by a 4-1 vote. Commr. Cadwell voted "no".

TIME CERTAIN

WORKSHOP - Vegetation Abatement Ordinance

Mr. Kirk Warren, Assistant County Attorney, presented the Board with additional backup material regarding the proposed Vegetation Abatement Ordinance, which included information from other counties, and a Quarterly Status Report from the Code Compliance Division of Lake County. Mr. Warren explained that "Lot" has been defined on Page 2, along with "Improved Lot". He went on to discuss Page 3, Section 4, Exemptions, and Section 5, Declaration of Nuisance and Prohibited Conditions, which describes "nuisance", and how it relates to an improved lot, and an unimproved lot. Mr. Warren discussed Page 4, Section 6, Designation of Investigating and Enforcing Authority, which pertains to Code Compliance Inspectors, and Section 7, Reasonable, Good Faith Trespass by Code Compliance Inspectors, which is a protective device for the inspectors. He explained Section 8, Procedural Implementation, which has been patterned after ordinances in other counties.

Commr. Swartz stated that his only concern is still the physical problem of entering onto improved property with individuals residing on the property, and the safety involved. He assumed that the Sheriff's Department might be able to assist in such cases.

Commr. Hanson questioned Chief Craig Haun, Director of Fire and Emergency Services, as to what he could do in lieu of the proposed ordinance.

Chief Haun addressed the Board and explained action that could be taken under the Fire Prevention Code, and stated that there is a mechanism to determine whether something is a hazard. He stated that, if a violation is written, it is turned over to the Code Enforcement Board.

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, stated that, after consulting with the County Attorney's Office, there is a possibility that the Board could adopt an ordinance authorizing the fire department, under the Fire Prevention Statute, to abate the public safety hazard upon a professional finding, to allow the costs to be assessed to the property owner. It was noted by Mr. Gaylord that there is a civil fine provision, which could allow for the adoption of a fine to include administrative costs.

Mr. Charles Jacobs appeared before the Board and stated that the County started addressing this issue over one year ago. He encouraged the Board to adopt the ordinance as it is written today, and to put faith into the County staff who can deal with the public, and give them the "tool" they need to address the issues. He discussed the County having to add several other people to staff to take care of the additional work load, and stated that he did not feel this would be true. Mr. Jacobs stated, when the ordinance is enacted, the development in which he lives will be notifying those who have vacant lots about the new law on the books, and there will be no need for the County to add to its staff. He stated that, if there are issues that arise that need to be addressed, the ordinance can be amended. He further stated that the Code Enforcement Department has demonstrated on many an occasion that they can cope with the neighborhood problems. Mr. Jacobs urged the Board to approve the ordinance.

Mr. Don Braxich, Leesburg, appeared before the Board and questioned who the agency would be to clean up the property, the County, or someone contracted by the County. He stated that these types of questions also need to be addressed.

Commr. Swartz stated that this would have to be addressed by the Board, and staff will need to come back with a recommendation as to whether the County wants to use its own Public Services Department, or to contract with an agency, to handle the abatement of vegetation.

On a motion by Commr. Gerber, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved to advertise the proposed Vegetation Abatement Ordinance, as presented to the Board today.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/COMMUNITY SERVICES/GRANTS/RESOLUTIONS

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Gerber and carried unanimously, the Board approved and authorized signature on the Resolution, and three applications for the 1994 Community Services Block Grant, in the amount of $4,665.00.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Commr. Gerber made a motion, which was seconded for discussion by Commr. Swartz, to approve the proposed Exhibit "B" for remedial amendment to address objections in the Statement of Intent to Find Lake County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 93-1 (Ordinance 1993-14) Not In Compliance--for negotiation purposes.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that this item requires that the County do the Administration Financing Study by the end of 1996, and even though it does not necessarily tie the County to a stormwater utility, it does require the County to develop a financing scheme, and to put it into place to deal with stormwater.

The Chairman called for a vote, which was carried unanimously.

COUNTY MANAGER'S CONSENT AGENDA - ADDENDUM NO 1

Mr. Don Griffey, Director of Engineering, was present to explain the request.

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request to award Lake County aerial photography to Woolpert Corporation for Aerial Option #4 from the Ocklawaha Basin Recreation and Water Conservation and Control Authority Bid No. 94-04, and to encumber and expend funds in the amount of $61,415.00.

COUNTY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENTAL BUSINESS

ACCOUNTS ALLOWED/FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, discussed the request to approve to pay off the debt service loan with Barnett Bank in the approximate amount of $206,000.00, and stated that, if it is paid off by February 1, 1994, an estimated $4,828.70 will be saved.

On a motion by Commr. Swartz, seconded by Commr. Cadwell and carried unanimously, the Board approved the request, as stated above.

REPORTS

COMMITTEES/PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Discussion occurred regarding the letter from the Land Development Regulations Committee, which indicated that the areas of the current Land Development Regulations, which need the Committee's immediate attention, are Concurrency, Timeliness, and Siting Criteria in Commercial. The letter also indicated that staff suggested, upon completion of these important sections, that these issues be forwarded to the Board for consideration and action, instead of waiting for the entire document to be completed.

Commr. Bailey commented that it would be easier to go through each one of the issues, but Commr. Swartz contended that each section would require two public hearings, and from the standpoint of advertising, it would be very costly.

Mr. Greg Stubbs, Coordinator, One Stop Permitting Center, addressed the areas of concern that he is confronted with daily when dealing with the public, and stated that a lot of the issues require specific regulations, which are not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan.

Commr. Bailey stated that, even though he is concerned about costs, the Comprehensive Plan has been such a major undertaking that it would be easier to address each section individually, in order to avoid trying to address too much at one time.

Commr. Swartz stated that he would prefer to get a complete packet of revisions to workshop and then schedule them for a public hearing. He stressed the number of public hearings that would have to be held, if the Board tried to piecemeal the matter.

Commr. Cadwell interpreted the letter from Mr. C. E. Smoak, Jr., Chairman, Land Development Regulation Committee that he wanted the Board to look at these issues as they finished them, but not to act on each individual section.

Commr. Hanson stated that the Board could hear the three areas of immediate concern and have the required public hearings, and this would allow the Board members more time to become more knowledgeable on these three important items. She would be opposed to having separate public hearings on each issue.

Commr. Swartz questioned what segment of these three issues

was causing staff problems in answering questions from the public. Mr. Stubbs presented for discussion the issue of timeliness, and Commr. Bailey explained that there is no way to have development in the suburban areas, because you cannot meet the timeliness requirements. Commr. Swartz stated that the way to deal with the issue is to come back and address those designated areas on the Land Use Map.

Commr. Hanson stated that the issue before the Board is whether to send direction back to the LDR Committee to discuss and consider these three issues separately and send them back to the Board.

Commr. Swartz stated that he does not want the LDR Committee to send to the Board the three areas separately, because they are inter-related.

Commr. Bailey reiterated that he feels when the Committee finishes an area, it should be sent to the Board for review.

Commr. Cadwell suggested that the LDR Committee send to the Board the three issues separate from the other document, so that the Board can act on those three together. The Board would act on the three issues at one time, and then act one time on the balance of the completed document. He stated that the three issues have enough in common that they can be considered together, which would eliminate an entire set of public hearings.

Commr. Cadwell made a motion, which was seconded for discussion by Commr. Bailey, for the Board to act one time on the three issues separately from the completed document, and to act one time on the balance of the completed document.

Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that it would not be appropriate to take the issues individually to workshop, or to public hearings, because these three items are the bulk of the review where the changes have occurred in the Amended Comprehensive Plan, and therefore, he would support the motion made by Commr. Cadwell.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote. Commrs. Bailey and Gerber voted "no".

MEETINGS

Mr. Pete Wahl, County Manager, requested that the Board schedule a workshop on February 10, 1994, at 10 a.m., to discuss and to give direction to the staff on water/wastewater issues particularly in South Lake County.

No action was needed by the Board.

COMMISSIONERS BUSINESS

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Commr. Bailey informed the Board that he had requested the County Manager to review the wind load standards on pole barns, utility sheds, aluminum buildings, etc. He asked that this issue be placed on the agenda, and for staff to provide the Board with information to review.

Commr. Hanson stated that she has requested that the Agriculture Advisory Committee review this issue, and to provide the Board with a recommendation.



COUNTY POLICY/ZONING

Commr. Swartz requested that the Board schedule, as an agenda item, a policy discussion with regard to the Board's intent on utilizing MSBUs in the future.

No action was needed by the Board.

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMITTEES

On a motion by Commr. Cadwell, seconded by Commr. Bailey and carried unanimously, the Board approved the appointment of Mr. Russell Bryan to the Agriculture Advisory Committee, to serve as a representative of the fern growers.

APPOINTMENTS-RESIGNATIONS/COMMISSIONERS/COMMITTEES/PERSONNEL

On a motion by Commr. Bailey, seconded by Commr. Swartz and carried unanimously, the Board approved the re-appointment of Commr. Rhonda H. Gerber to the Personnel Committee for 1994.

COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONERS

Commr. Swartz questioned the Chairman as to when she was going to reschedule further discussion on the remaining liaison positions.

Commr. Hanson explained that she felt there was no need to discuss the positions further, because the members felt there was no need for someone to serve on the Animal Control Committee. If Commr. Swartz felt that there was a need, and someone would like to serve on it, this item could be considered again. As far as Capital Improvements, she stated that she was appointed by the Board to serve on the Renovation General Contractor Selection Committee in December, 1993, which would fall under the category of Capital Improvements. She stated that she will continue to serve on the Childrens Services Commission, because of the lack of interest shown by anyone else to serve on it.

Commr. Swartz requested that the Chairman place on the agenda the other appointments on the liaison list that were not approved.



Commr. Hanson explained that, after staff researched the issue of appointments to the liaison list, it was determined that, in the past, it was never required that the Commission actually vote to approve the appointments, unless the person sat as a member on a Committee. It has been the privilege of the Chairman to set those appointments. The Board could consider changing the policy, if it so desired.

Commr. Swartz discussed the motion made previously to bring back to the Board those committees to which appointments were not made. He stressed that, with the Chairman not bringing those back, it would not be consistent with the vote taken at that time.

Commr. Hanson clarified her establishment with the Renovation General Contractor Selection Committee and the Childrens' Services Commission, and stated that the Animal Control Committee can be brought back up for discussion.

Discussion occurred regarding the establishment of policy. Commr. Bailey stated that he would like this to be at the discretion of the Chairman to set appointments for the committees.

Commr. Hanson stated that she will bring the Animal Control Committee back to the Board for an appointment.

COMMISSIONERS/MEETINGS

Commr. Hanson reminded the Board that the Board Retreat will be held on February 8, 1994, at 9 a.m., at the Agricultural Center in the Conference Room.

Commr. Hanson informed the Board that the State of the County will be held on the first floor of the Judicial Building at 6:30 p.m., on February 24, 1994. She stated that three retreats were held last year, two out of Lake County in private buildings, and not very accessible to the public, and the other one was in Lake County in a private building and not accessible to the public. This is not to be intended for a Town Meeting, but only a presentation.



COUNTY ATTORNEY

Mr. Tim Hoban, Senior Assistant County Attorney, discussed scheduling a workshop on the issue of bingo, for the next Board meeting, February 1, 1994, and requested direction from the Board, as to public comment being taken at this time.

It was noted that a workshop on bingo would be scheduled for February 1, 1994, at 11 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, without public comment.

RECESS AND REASSEMBLY

At 4:30 p.m., the Chairman announced that the Board would recess until 5:05 p.m., for the public hearing on the proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 15, Lake County Code, Land Development Regulations, Road and School Impact Fees.

PUBLIC HEARING/TIME CERTAIN

At 5:05 p.m., the Chairman announced that the advertised time had arrived for the public hearing on the proposed Ordinance Amending Chapter 15, Lake County Code, Land Development Regulations, Road and School Impact Fees.

Mr. Mark Knight, Chief Planner, Planning Division, addressed the Board and stated that this is the second public hearing on the proposed ordinance, which allows the impact fee to run with the land rather than the structure for both mobile homes and conventional homes.

Commr. Hanson opened the public hearing on the proposed ordinance. No one present wished to speak on the issue, therefore, the Chairman closed the public hearing portion of the meeting.

Commr. Bailey made a motion, which was seconded by Commr. Gerber, to approve Ordinance 1994-2, Amending Chapter 15, Lake County Code, Land Development Regulations, Road and School Impact Fees, which follows by title only:



AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 15, LAKE COUNTY CODE, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ROAD AND SCHOOL IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 15, LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SECTION 15.00.00, ROAD IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15.00.07, COMPUTATION, SUB-SECTION I., EXEMPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 15, LAKE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SECTION 15.01.00, SCHOOL IMPACT FEES; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15.01.17, EXEMPTIONS AND CREDITS, SUB-SECTION A., EXEMPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15.01.10, PAYMENT OF VALUE OF LAND OR USE OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE, SUB-SECTION C.1., FEE SCHEDULE, TO UPDATE THE FEE SCHEDULE TO REFLECT THE ANNUAL OCTOBER 1 ADJUSTMENTS INCORPORATED TO DATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE LAKE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.



Under discussion, Commr. Swartz stated that it was his understanding, if an individual has a mobile home on a site, and he pays the impact fee at this site, and he moves the mobile home to another brand new site within the same impact fee district, he will have to pay it again.

The Chairman called for a vote on the motion, which was carried by a 3-2 vote, with Commrs. Cadwell and Swartz voting "no". There being no further business to be brought to the attention of the Board, the meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m.



CATHERINE C. HANSON, CHAIRMAN



ATTEST:







JAMES C. WATKINS, CLERK



TMR\1-25-94\2-23-94